Philosophy Now Forum

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:39 pm Yes, but should you hypothesise that the increase in temperature is due to a heater you cannot see, your hypothesis is underdetermined, because there are alternative explanations which could account for exactly the same increase. It is not either there is or isn't a heater, nor even a superposition of heater/non-heater.

That isn't important to a scientist. If I can observe that the temperature is going up I can assume that SOMETHING is causing it to go up - even if I don't yet understand all the causal factors (I can look for them later).
Being able to notice patterns in the temperature (predict its behavior) is already super useful. Think seasons. We can't control the weather but we know when summer and winter are. So we dress accordingly.

This is why the falsifiability criterion is critical in science. Without it - there are infinitely many plausible explanations. One says God did it, the other says Allah did it. If you can't provide positive AND negative properties for the object you claim exists - then you don't understand Godel's ontologoical proof and you are committing a truism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... ical_proof

But again - prediction is good enough for a start. If you figure out the exact cause - control becomes a possibility too too.

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:39 pm Well, dark matter is one hypothesis for why galaxies aren't torn apart by centrifugal forces.

All models are wrong. Some are useful ( read - they predict).

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:39 pm I've no idea where you get the impression that I believe in fairies.

I just continued with your example. Pick something you do believe in and tell me what you DO with that belief?

You believe in the Moon, I imagine? And then?

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:56 pm Well, according to many theists god is omnipresent, so any planet with reliable witnesses will do.

But if you go with my conception of a God (the programmers of this universe) you won't be able to detect them because they control your perception.

And so suppose I do believe that the universe is a computer simulation created by a bunch of engineers (like myself, which would explain why this place is so fucked up!) then what?

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:46 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:21 pmAnd so IF we are inside a quantum computer simulation right now - then I have a pretty good idea what the peeps who built it (call them God if you will) are capable of doing to our universe. Without us ever knowing.

You need to make that IF bigger. Yeah, it's an hypothesis, so now you have to "think like a scientist" and provide the evidence. Bit like Mr Can and his god.

Yeah, but it doesn't matter - whether it is literal or metaphorical by pretending as IF we are in a computer and using computational models to conceptualize the universe; and my own mind and your mind e.g to reason consistently about metaphysics and psychology (even if I am effectively using Platonic forms a.k.a models) which is obviously NOT the ontological structure of your brain.

So what - it works? It works exceptionally well even if it's not "true" It works better than what philosophers have been doing for 3000 years. Mostly because I disregard all of their axioms. It works better than what psychologist are doing too.

All models are wrong - some are useful. By the objective yardstick of prediction/control.

Pragmatism comes first ( for me ).

And the evidence fort my hypothesis it is all of Quantum physics. It is unfalsifiable at present. Until somebody figures out what time, entropy and information ARE (ontologically). At which point a better general-purpose predictive models will come about. Maybe string theory? *shrug*

If you are looking for the "true nature of reality" - well. I must ask - how would you recognize it for what it is if/when you find it?
The search for Truth is an isomorphic problem to the Halting problem in computer science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

Will the algorithm ever complete?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:55 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:39 pm Yes, but should you hypothesise that the increase in temperature is due to a heater you cannot see, your hypothesis is underdetermined, because there are alternative explanations which could account for exactly the same increase. It is not either there is or isn't a heater, nor even a superposition of heater/non-heater.

That isn't important to a scientist.

That depends on the scientist. Ya might want to have another look at my 'Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia' thread.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:55 pmIf I can observe that the temperature is going up I can assume that SOMETHING is causing it to go up - even if I don't yet understand all the causal factors (I can look for them later).

Why bother if it's not important.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:55 pmBeing able to notice patterns in the temperature (predict its behavior) is already super useful. Think seasons. We can't control the weather but we know when summer and winter are. So we dress accordingly.

This is why the falsifiability criterion is critical in science.

Only to your definition of science. There is plenty of 'science' that is unfalsifiable.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:55 pmWithout it - there are infinitely many plausible explanations.

Yup, that's underdetermination for you.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:55 pmOne says God did it, the other says Allah did it. If you can give me positive AND negative properties for the object you claim exists - then you don't understand Godel's ontologoical proof and you are comitting a truism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... ical_proof
But again - prediction is good enough for a start. If you figure out the exact cause - control becomes a possibility too too.

Ah, so it is important.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:55 pmAll models are wrong. Some are useful ( read - they predict).

Again, they are underdetermined.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:55 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:39 pm I've no idea where you get the impression that I believe in fairies.

I just continued with your example. Pick something you do believe in and tell me what you DO with that belief?

You believe in the Moon, I imagine? And then?

I don't 'believe' in the Moon. I think the explanation for the phenomena; that there is a lump of rock in orbit that people have stood on, is overwhelmingly the most compelling.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:55 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:56 pm Well, according to many theists god is omnipresent, so any planet with reliable witnesses will do.

But if you go with my conception of a God (the programmers of this universe) you won't be able to detect them because they control your perception.

But I have no control over them, so by your instrumentalist criteria it's not a scientific hypothesis.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:55 pmAnd so suppose I do believe that the universe is a computer simulation created by a bunch of engineers (like myself, which would explain why this place is so fucked up!) then what?

It's your idea. You tell me.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:58 pmPragmatism comes first ( for me ).

As I said, you might take another look at my Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia thread.

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:21 pm Why bother if it's not important.

"Important" is a meaningless word without a value-system. Important to whom and why?

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:21 pm Yup, that's underdetermination for you.

OK, but why do you expect (pre-suppose) determinism?
Is the universe deterministic? What if it isn't? All evidence points to the latter.

So is determinism your desire/criterion for 'knowledge'? If it is - then you need a reality check...

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:21 pm Ah, so it is important.

It depends - is total control important to you? e.g determinism ?
Prediction is often sufficient

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:21 pm But I have no control over them, so by your instrumentalist criteria it's not a scientific hypothesis.

Correct. I don't care about undetectable phenomena. Falsifiability is a physical law of the universe in my paradigm.

And so my belief in our Programmer Overlords is itself inconsequential. Until they start speaking to me...

I am getting the sense that you have bought into the Clockwork universe ideal? Which IS isomorphic to having 'total control' of the system. Which is equivalent to believing in the possibility of a God in the form of self-deification. Genesis 1:27 ?

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:23 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:58 pmPragmatism comes first ( for me ).

As I said, you might take another look at my Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia thread.

I have and have responded.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:31 pm"Important" is a meaningless word without a value-system. Important to whom and why?

To whoever, and for their own reasons. That was one of the main points that Feyerabend made in Against Method, which you say you admire.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:31 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:21 pm Yup, that's underdetermination for you.

OK, but why do you expect determinism?

It's nothing to do with determinism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:31 pmIs the universe deterministic? What if it isn't? All evidence points to the latter.

So is determinism your desire/criterion for 'knowledge'?

See above.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:31 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:21 pm Ah, so it is important.

It depends - is total control important to you? e.g determinism ?
Prediction is sometimes sufficient

And again.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:31 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:21 pm But I have no control over them, so by your instrumentalist criteria it's not a scientific hypothesis.

Correct. I don't care about undetectable phenomena. Falsifiability is a physical law of the universe in my paradigm.

Well, if it's not detectable, it isn't a phenomenon, but I agree that no one should care about something that makes no difference.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:31 pmAnd so my belief in our Programmer Overlords is itself inconsequential. Until they start speaking to me...

I am getting the sense that you have bought into the Clockwork universe fantasy?

That is your Programmer Overlords fucking with your head.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:32 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:23 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:58 pmPragmatism comes first ( for me ).

As I said, you might take another look at my Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia thread.

I have and have responded.

And either forgotten or ignored. Meh, that's your prerogative.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:59 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:52 am Your analysis of what constitutes harm is correct: things and actions we may call harmful by one criterion we may instead call beneficial by another.

And yet you claim the word 'good' and its cognates are free of this subjective, judgemental use - that being good is an objective property, for example of the particular god you suppose exists, or of the actions that god supposedly commanded, such as infant genital mutilation.

This mixes up human epistemology with ontology. Whether or not good exists objectively is one question; whether or not all human beings have unimpeded knowledge of this objective truth is another. If you overlap them, you come to think that human mistakes regarding meaning have some impact on the actual existence of the things they misunderstand.

They don't. Those are separate concerns: both legitimate in their own sphere, but the ontological, not the epistemological, is in view in the OP.

The MGB description of a god...

I haven't put that description forward here. Let's not get into Anselm et al.

Our present problem is that we haven't established the basis of moral accusation -- namely, the possibility of an objective moral claim. Nothing can be objectively morally problematic in a world in which there is no objective morality.

No, I'm not mixing up epistemology and ontology.

I'm glad to hear you don't think your god is a maximally great being - but you do seem to think it's a supreme being. My point is that greatness or supremacy aren't real properties of people or things - and that, in the same way, neither is goodness.

The expression 'maximal goodness' is as incoherent as the expression 'maximal greatness' - because a scalar measurement of a subjective judgement is absurd. That a mountain is the tallest (the maximally tall) makes sense, in context. But that a being is the goodest (the maximally good) makes no sense.

And you repeat your claim:

Our present problem is that we haven't established the basis of moral accusation -- namely, the possibility of an objective moral claim. Nothing can be objectively morally problematic in a world in which there is no objective morality.

As it happens, this is the simplest and clearest expression (apart from the word 'accusation') of your position that I can remember. (Sorry if I missed it earlier.) You seem to mean: if moral claims aren't objective, moral accusation can have no basis (foundation or justification). Is that about right?

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:56 pm To whoever, and for their own reasons. That was one of the main points that Feyerabend made in Against Method, which you say you admire.

OK, but any particular whoever will have some particular reasons. And 'importance' is a function of those particular reasons. Their reasons may lead them to decide that uncovering the causal factors is important. Or they may decide that prediction is sufficient for whatever their immediate goal is.

Indeed - Feyerabend preaches extreme subjectivism.

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:56 pm It's nothing to do with determinism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination

You are still arguing from a position where 'beliefs' are things one 'hold' in their head for unspecified purposes separate from their teleology.
I reject this conception of belief. Explain to me what the consequences of holding a belief are. What do you USE your beliefs for?

What we seem to be disagreeing about is our standards for evidence. I consider predictive utility to be sufficient in order to believe something. I care about USEFUL quantifiable, information. Not some abstract notion of 'truth' or 'belief'. And so very many decisions can (and are) made on incomplete and partial information.

If one thought that it is important (by some subjective standard of importance) to know which specific combination of apples and oranges were purchased with $10 then they would contrive an experiment/mechanism to measure that. You ARE preaching for absolute determinism!
Which is ironic - because in such a universe free will is impossible.

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:56 pm Ah, so it is important.

Importance is function of teleology.

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:56 pm And again.

You can still PREDICT that you bought 10 or less apples or 5 or less oranges.

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:56 pm That is your Programmer Overlords fucking with your head.

I can't tell either way - neither can you.

Hehe.. and some people wondered why I opened my Information does not exist as such topic back then. Maybe a better topic name would have been "The information insanity". Many, including like 80%+ of those working in IT, and also several posters on this forum, seem to have it nowadays.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:24 pm Hehe.. and some people wondered why I opened my Information does not exist as such topic back then. Maybe a better topic name would have been "The information insanity". Many, including like 80%+ of those working in IT, and also several posters on this forum, seem to have it nowadays.

This is the fallacy of gray again!

It doesn't matter if it exists or not. The models work! Science is a pragmatic institution, not an idealistic one. You are looking for a perfect conception of reality (which by the 2nd law of thermodynamics is IMPOSSIBLE) I will settle for a good enough approximation. Perfect is the enemy of good.

https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience ... fwrong.htm

When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

Information doesn't exist you guys! Says he communicating with people he has never met all around the globe.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:31 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:24 pm Hehe.. and some people wondered why I opened my Information does not exist as such topic back then. Maybe a better topic name would have been "The information insanity". Many, including like 80%+ of those working in IT, and also several posters on this forum, seem to have it nowadays.

This is the fallacy of gray again!

It doesn't matter if it exists or not. The models work! Science is a pragmatic institution, not an idealistic one. You are looking for a perfect conception of reality (which by the 2nd law of thermodynamics is IMPOSSIBLE) I will settle for a good enough approximation. Perfect is the enemy of good.

https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience ... fwrong.htm

When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

Information doesn't exist you guys! Says he communicating with people he has never met all around the globe.

I asked you before, if you are only interested in models, then why are you commenting on a philosophy forum?
You answered that you were interested in more than just models. But all you talk about are models. Make up your mind.

Oh right, as you said you reject noncontradiction, so you are free to contradict yourself.

Btw everyone knows that a perfect conception of reality is impossible.

You also don't seem to understand how information is physically transmitted in cables.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:38 pm I asked you before, if you are only interested in models, then why are you commenting on a philosophy forum?
You answered that you were interested in more than just models. But all you talk about are models. Make up your mind.

Everything in your head is a model numbnut. The map is not the territory. It will never be the territory.
Because mathematically the territory doesn't fit in your head. There is not enough spacetime in there!

Truth-seeking - talk about religious belief.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:38 pm You also don't seem to understand how information is physically transmitted in cables.

And you don't seem to understand that information and entropy are statistical/mathematical constructs, not physical ones. The physical medium of transmission doesn't matter - that is just implementation/realization detail.

You can encode bits of information in photons (light/lasers). You can encode bits of information in crystal lattices of diamonds. You can encode bits of information in a fart using morse code.

As long as one can distinguish a probability distribution of the receiving side - you can encode information over that channel.

This Knowledge is free: https://www.khanacademy.org/computing/c ... on-entropy

Information is just divide-and-conquer using statistics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_an ... _algorithm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:44 pmEverything in your head is a model numbnut. The map is not the territory. It will never be the territory.
Because mathematically the territory doesn't fit in your head. There is not enough spacetime in there!

Truth-seeking - talk about religious belief.

As usual you change the context and talk about models/human cognition in a more general sense. Yes, in THAT sense everything is a model. Everyone with half a brain knows that too.

Maybe you really can't stop mixing things together?

And you don't seem to understand that information and entropy are statistical/mathematical constructs, not physical ones. The physical medium of transmission doesn't matter - that is just implementation/realization detail.

You can encode bits of information in photons (light/lasers). You can encode bits of information in crystal lattices of diamonds. You can encode bits of information in a fart using morse code.

As long as one can distinguish a probability distribution of the receiving side - you can encode information over that channel.

This Knowledge is free: https://www.khanacademy.org/computing/c ... on-entropy

Information is just divide-and-conquer using statistics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_an ... _algorithm

Statistical/mathematical constructs are just abstract constructs too, so that didn't say anything.

Except actual physical entropy, which is not the same as entropy of information.